Out with "first edition", in with "first printing"?

Has the time come--or is the time long past--to stop using the shortcut
"first edition" as the iconic term for the object of most collectors'
desires?

Book collecting & used bookselling no longer operate like closed
communities, and, whereas using "first edition" when one really means
"first printing of the first edition" was once convenient shorthand, it
is now responsible for so much misunderstanding and misrepresentation
that it has ceased to be a convenience and has become instead an
annoyance, one that allows the unscrupulous to sell their later
printings as "stated First Edition!" and induces the uninformed to buy
and sell these same books under the impression that they are dealing in
collectable copies.

Everyone here can recall many examples from eBay, of course; but the
problem is just as bad at the major listing services. At ABE & Alibris,
checking the "First Edition" box certainly doesn't limit your search to
first printings (or even to first editions, for that matter--but that's
another issue). I no longer trust a listing that describes a book as
simply a "first edition" unless I've dealt with that seller before; if
it doesn't also say "first printing," I ask before I buy, or I just skip
it in favor of a listing that does specify 1st printing.

So, is it time--is it even possible--to change the cultural norm in the
book-collecting world? To de-emphasize the term "first edition," and
push the term "first printing" to the forefront? Or is there even any
point in trying to change which term is used? Liars will still lie, and
the ignorant & unwary will still get taken, no matter what terms we use.


--Jon Meyers

Jon Meyers thundered thusly:

> Has the time come--or is the time long past--to stop using the shortcut
> "first edition" as the iconic term for the object of most collectors'
> desires?
>
> Book collecting & used bookselling no longer operate like closed
> communities, and, whereas using "first edition" when one really means
> "first printing of the first edition" was once convenient shorthand, it
> is now responsible for so much misunderstanding and misrepresentation
> that it has ceased to be a convenience and has become instead an
> annoyance, one that allows the unscrupulous to sell their later
> printings as "stated First Edition!" and induces the uninformed to buy
> and sell these same books under the impression that they are dealing in
> collectable copies.
>
> Everyone here can recall many examples from eBay, of course; but the
> problem is just as bad at the major listing services. At ABE & Alibris,
> checking the "First Edition" box certainly doesn't limit your search to
> first printings (or even to first editions, for that matter--but that's
> another issue). I no longer trust a listing that describes a book as
> simply a "first edition" unless I've dealt with that seller before; if
> it doesn't also say "first printing," I ask before I buy, or I just skip
> it in favor of a listing that does specify 1st printing.
>

Alternatively, you could do your own legwork like most astute
collectors, by referring to trade catalogues, reference books and
online resources like the various national libraries.


> So, is it time--is it even possible--to change the cultural norm in the
> book-collecting world? To de-emphasize the term "first edition," and
> push the term "first printing" to the forefront? Or is there even any
> point in trying to change which term is used? Liars will still lie, and
> the ignorant & unwary will still get taken, no matter what terms we use.
>
>
> --Jon Meyers

You seem to be under the misapprehension that sellers are all-knowing
and the buyers are all-stupid. In my experience of Ebay for example,
sellers with little book dealing experience are much more ignorant than
some of the shark-like collectors, many of whom are able to zoom in on
misdescribed rarities and snatch a bargain at the seller's expense. For
this reason, I think your portrayal of the status quo very unrealistic.
The internet has brought millions of previously unavailable books into
the bookbuying arena, so whilst you may get the irritatingly ignorant
'first edition' appellations, you also get access to very obscure books
at a very reasonable price.

The only issue I do agree with you on is this: I think first printings
SHOULD be described as first printings. It doesn't matter if the
printer or publisher takes five years to sell his stock of printed
sheets (as often happened a century or two ago), if they were printed
at the same time on the same paper by the same people, then they are
all first printings. Just because a later catalogue is slipped in to a
book sold six months later, it should not mean it is a later printing
or an inferior item.

My biggest bugbear with the internet is the wave of new print on demand
booksellers. They are the real flies in the ointment. They haven't even
printed their book yet, yet the call it a first edition and use all
manner of catch-all keywords, so that when you search for a book, you
find yourself bogged down in reams of useless and annoying POD
listings.

SS